DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case for John Jay's Nomination As First Chief Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case for John Jay's Nomination As First Chief Justice The Case for John Jay’s Nomination as First Chief Justice Benjamin Lyons tudents of early American history Sare generally aware that John Jay (1745–1829) served as the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court; yet few have found much significance in that fact. The Court over which Jay presided did not issue any timeless opinions, or leave an otherwise notable legacy. Consequently, little has been written about Jay or his contribution to early American law. It would be unfair, however, to fault the first justices for this outcome, for structural weaknesses in the early Court gave John Jay as United States secretary of foreign them relatively few opportunities to affairs, c. 1784. display their talents. Scarcely any federal laws had been passed, for instance, when the Court first sat in February 1790. It was months before appellate cases made their way up through the lower courts. Moreover, the Judiciary Act of 1789 mandated that the justices spend much of each year riding circuit on the lower court of appeals. The justices were nevertheless among the most distinguished jurists in the country. Jay’s selection as first chief justice merits particular attention as his unusual qualifications shed fresh light on the parameters of early American law. 1 Benjamin Lyons is a recent graduate of the Ph.D. program in history at Columbia University. He would like to thank Benjamin Guterman and the journal’s reviewers for their comments and suggestions on this article. 1 For Jay’s tenure as chief justice, see especially: William R. Casto, The Supreme Court in the Early Republic: The Chief Justiceships of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995); Matthew P. Harrington, Jay and Ellsworth, the First Courts: Justices, Rulings and Legacy (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc., 2008); Herbert A. Johnson, “John Jay and the Supreme Court,” New York History 81 (2000): 59–90; Richard B. Morris, John Jay, the Nation and the Court (Boston: Boston University Press, 1968); and Sandra Frances VanBurkleo, “‘Honour, Justice and Interest’: John Jay’s Republican Politics and Statesmanship on the Federalist Bench,” Journal of the Early Republic 4 (1984): 239–74. 15 16 | Federal History 2021 When George Washington made his federal nominations, in early fall 1789, a seat on the Supreme Court was widely regarded as one of the most prestigious positions in the new government—and the president took such appointments seriously. “No part of my duty,” he had written in May, “will be more delicate . than that of nominating . persons to offices.” He was determined to nominate “those persons only, who, upon every consideration, were the most deserving, and who would probably execute their several functions to the interest and credit of the American Union.” He took particular care in filling out the judiciary, describing it as “the chief-Pillar upon which our national Government must rest” and stating that it was “the invariable object of my anxious solicitude to select the fittest characters to expound the Laws and dispense justice.” 2 The president had no shortage of applicants to choose from. William Cushing, chief justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court; John Rutledge, chief judge of the South Carolina Court of Chancery; and John Blair, chancellor of the Virginia Court of Chancery, all received appointments as associate justices of the Supreme Court. When it came to the office of chief justice, however, the president turned to Jay, a diplomat from the state of New York, whose only experience as a judge was a brief stint as chief justice of New York (1776–1778), during a period when the turmoil of war prevented the court from conducting much business. The president nevertheless expressed “singular pleasure” with his nomination and added his hope that Jay would not “hesitate a moment to bring into action the talents, knowledge and integrity which are so necessary to be exercised at the head of that department which must be considered as the Key-Stone of our political fabric.” What “talents” or “knowledge” was Washington referring to? 3 As historians of early America are aware, Jay was more than a diplomat. He was among the most distinguished revolutionaries of his era. Educated at King’s College in New York and admitted to the bar in 1768, he had been a rising star in colonial legal circles when the Revolution began. At the age of 28 he was elected to the First Continental Congress. He had gone on to serve as president of the Continental Congress (1778–1779), United States minister to Spain (1779–1782), co-negotiator of the Treaty of Paris (1782–1783), and secretary for foreign affairs 2 George Washington to James Bowdoin, May 9, 1789, in Dorothy Twohig, ed., The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1987), vol. 2, 235–36 (hereinafter cited as PGW). George Washington to William Cushing, September 30, 1789, and George Washington to Robert Hanson Harrison, September 28, 1789, in PGW, 4: 78, 98. 3 From George Washington to John Jay, October 5, 1789, in Elizabeth M. Nuxoll, ed., The Selected Papers of John Jay (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2010– ), vol. 5, 151–52 (hereinafter cited asSPJJ ). The Case for John Jay’s Nomination as First Chief Justice | 17 John Jay’s alma mater, King’s College of New York City, c. 1760. (1784–1789). In the latter capacity, he had guided the foreign policy of the United States through a period when most of his peers were busy with local politics, serving abroad, or in retirement. He had also played a critical role in promoting and securing the ratification of the new Constitution. 4 Given these accomplishments, Jay’s appointment can be explained in part as a reward for his service to the revolution—and that was certainly one reason. But why the Supreme Court? What reason did Washington have for expecting that Jay would “execute” the duties of chief justice “to the interest and credit of the American Union?” To answer those questions, this article focuses attention on Jay’s use of law during his diplomatic career. In so doing, it emphasizes the law of nations—the rules of conduct for European diplomacy in the early modern era. Jay’s perspicacity in using that law to promote the survival of the new nation, the article suggests, offers ample evidence of his suitability for the office of chief justice, and of Washington’s wisdom in choosing Jay for that role. 5 4 See biographical sketch in Harrington, First Courts, 33–39. For Jay’s skill and reputation as a diplomat, see Washington’s explanation for having appointed him envoy extraordinary to Great Britain in 1794: “Was there an abler man, to be found . or one more esteemed?” “Comments on Monroe’s View of the Conduct of the Executive of the United States,” c. March 1798. W. W. Abbot, ed., The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998), vol. 2, 175. For Jay’s role in promoting the Constitution, see Joseph Ellis, The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2015) 65–74; 84–93; 107–15; 187–91. 5 George Washington to James Bowdoin, supra note 3. 18 | Federal History 2021 The Law of Nations According to William Blackstone (1723–1780), the law of nations was a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance of justice and good faith in that intercourse which must frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each. The law’s content, Blackstone went on to say, was derived from two sources: “history and usage” and “such writers of all nations and languages as are generally approved and allowed of.” By “history and usage” Blackstone meant a set of customary norms that had come into formation over preceding centuries in Europe as a means of resolving routine points of conflict. By contrast, “writers of all nations” were European legal philosophers who in recent centuries had published lengthy treatises on the law of nations, in hopes of strengthening its theoretical foundations, while also opining on points of controversy. 6 Leaders of the American Revolution were familiar with the “writers of all nations,” but they knew little about the customary law of diplomacy. For one thing, customary law was generally unwritten and learned through experience. More importantly, it was the exclusive purview of “free and independent states,” who alone had the right to use the procedures that it prescribed and to enjoy the protections that it afforded. As former colonists, no one in the revolutionary leadership had ever conducted formal diplomatic negotiations with other states. That work had always been done on their behalf by representatives of the British crown in London. 7 6 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1765), Book IV, Chap. 5, 67–68. Little research has been done on the customary law of nations, though for reference see Stephen C. Neff, Justice Among Nations: A History of International Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 98, 191. By contrast, a great deal has been written on the treatises of northern European legal philosophers, especially those of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694), and Emerich de Vattel (1714–1767). For an introduction to this literature, see Neff, Justice Among Nations, 153–78. For insight into the role of customary law in early American diplomacy see Benjamin C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two Advisory Opinions by Chiefjustice Oliver Ellsworth
    Two Advisory Opinions by ChiefJustice Oliver Ellsworth William R. Casto ODA.Y ADVISORY OPINIONS are between the President and the House of anathema to the federal judiciary, but Representatives. Representative Edward T the early justices ofthe Supreme Court Livingston of New York had introduced a were not so loath to provide extrajudicialadvice resolution that would have reqnired President ro the Executive Branch. Although thejustices Washington to submit to the House the fanlOusly refused to render an advisory opinion documents and correspondence relevant to onone occasion duri~gthe Neutrality Crisis of the negotiation of the Jay Treaty, purportedly '793, their refusal was an exception (albeit an to assist the House in deciding whether to exception that was to become the rule) to their appropriate funds related to the treary. As ordinary practice. John Jay, the first Chief ProfeSSor David Currie has noted, "debate on Justice ofthe United States, gave the Executive this resolution lasted an enrire month and was Branch advisory opinions on a wide variety of one of the most impressive and fundamental • subjects before the 1793 refusal. After the ever conducted in Congress:'z Five days after Neutrality Crisis, the Court's third Chief he became Chief Justice, Ellsworth wrote an Justice, Oliver Ellsworth, continued the opinion letter to Connecticut Senator • practice..I .Jonathan-Trumbull, _cQru;!lJdinUj;t .. the. I , In 1796, Ellsworth wrote an advisory House had. no constitutional role in treaty • opinion on a looming constitutional dispute making and was thus bound to appropriate William R. Casto is the Alvin R. Allison Professor ofLaw at the Texas nch University School ofLaw.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1974 High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936" (1974). Popular Media. 267. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/267 Copyright c 1974 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 by William F. Swindler Twelve "civil officers" of the United States have tacle, appear to have rested more on objective (and been subjected to trials on impeachment articles perhaps quasi-indictable) charges. in the Senate. Both colorful and colorless figures The history of impeachment as a tool in the struggle have suffered through these trials, and the nation's for parliamentary supremacy in Great Britain and the fabric has been tested by some of the trials. History understanding of it at the time of the first state constitu- shows that impeachment trials have moved from tions and the Federal Convention of 1787 have been barely disguised political vendettas to quasi-judicial admirably researched by a leading constitutional his- proceedings bearing the trappings of legal trials. torian, Raoul Berger, in his book published last year, Impeachment: Some Constitutional Problems. Like Americans, Englishmen once, but only once, carried the political attack to; the head of state himself. In that encounter Charles I lost his case as well as his head. The decline in the quality of government under the Com- monwealth thereafter, like the inglorious record of MPEACHMENT-what Alexander Hamilton called American government under the Reconstruction Con- "the grand inquest of the nation"-has reached the gresses, may have had an ultimately beneficial effect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of Representation at the 1787 Convention
    The Question of Representation at the 1787 Convention Student Name ___________________________________________________ Date ________________ Activity Two: Bicameralism, Modes of Election and the “Rule of Suffrage” in Congress Reading Set A. One House or Two? 1. Constitutional Convention, 16 June 1787 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.com/convention/debates/0616.html Mr. PATTERSON, said as he had on a former occasion given his sentiments on the plan proposed by Mr. R. he would now avoiding repetition as much as possible give his reasons in favor of that proposed by himself…It is urged that two branches in the Legislature are necessary. Why? for the purpose of a check. But the reason of7 the precaution is not applicable to this case. Within a particular State, where party heats prevail, such a check may be necessary. In such a body as Congress it is less necessary, and besides, the delegations of the different States are checks on each other. Do the people at large complain of Congs.? No, what they wish is that Congs. may have more power. If the power now proposed be not eno', the people hereafter will make additions to it… Mr. WILSON entered into a contrast of the principal points of the two plans so far he said as there had been time to examine the one last proposed. These points were 1. in the Virga. plan there are 2 & in some degree 3 branches in the Legislature: in the plan from N. J. there is to be a single legislature only… [P]roceeding now to the 1st point on which he had contrasted the two plans, he observed that anxious as he was for some augmentation of the federal powers, it would be with extreme reluctance indeed that he could ever consent to give powers to Congs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Old Supreme Court Chamber (1810-1860)
    THE OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER 1810–1860 THE OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER 1810–1860 Historical Highlights Located on the ground floor of the original north wing of the Capitol Building, this space served as the Senate chamber from 1800 to 1808. It was here that the first joint session of Congress was held in the new capital city of Washington on November 22, 1800, and President Thomas Jeffer- son was inaugurated in 1801 and 1805. Architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe proposed extensive mod- ifications to the area in 1807, which included moving the Senate to the second floor and con- structing a chamber for the Supreme Court of the Working drawing for the Supreme Court Chamber by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, September 26, 1808 United States directly below (in the space previ- ously occupied by the Senate). The Court had been meeting in a small committee room in the north wing since 1801. The Capitol, however, was never intended to be its permanent home; a sepa- rate building for the Court was long discussed, but was not completed until 1935. The work on the Supreme Court chamber did not proceed without difficulties. Cost overruns were a problem, and Congress was slow in appropriating funds to continue the project. In September 1808 construction superintendent John Lenthall was killed when he prematurely removed props sup- porting the chamber’s vaulted ceiling, causing it to collapse. But by August 1809 the massive vault had been rebuilt on an even more ambitious scale. Often likened to an umbrella or a pumpkin, it was a triumph both structurally and aesthetically.
    [Show full text]
  • Vrtss. Sign to Say Anything with Reference Blond 4 Amountingendorsed to 4D0,21.,000., Nor Gover- Mury the Reasons For' Companita
    . .. .. -.., ." - . '. .. ' , ... .' THE N011.E.4304. "'b. 1 *. ..' THE WAX& PilEfillS. , . -'' Vl - , , , -2 . • (-ivNT)Prs ritt.). ‘ -. .. f. 1.411111) DAILY mx c nr N. lir / .-' (rumaksina) wr.miLy.) 1( ronNur. .. _ ...„,,„... - B JOHN W. 1,...........:r; .:.'r:,":/ ~- ' ' .** Tula WAR i.noos will bo gent to ....' 7 oubeortbireihr -.. : . FOURTII 1......."'....'\ ,; -- . Wk NO. 111 SOUTH t3TREIST. .. .. ..., --7 ,)- OFFICE .-. , e. " . 4., tnoll(per annum In advance, - ~ , . , . - ',Z ” %.-- 1 at $24 q 1. 1.-..2 71r .. .' ,_- - I. 1, 0 7... .7 0 li:01111....., ''....:-..../.. 10 1100 _.:... 4°l' TILE DAILY PRESS, CCONCPt ~ „.,,„....,.,.:;,...,;.;...,...,!, Tt'n Subscribers, DOLLARS 1 , copll. ". 00 City Is EIGHT PER A.E- .. • . - .% •;". Mill ---- .-- .-- . -"." '' -.''' FIFTEEN . 1 - -, ... .•'-^ AK -is !, -' ::#1 or CENTS PER - , ) WEEK, -----,7, -. Carper In -- a"- 2 14 advance; 4.._''' 1" Ai ' -. _______ charged -41.0., ..---' ' t. ' . , ' claim ---• ---'-';' 7/St . - ~,,,,#'• '', tltikn Ten willbe at the mune 4.4 '1 1 1 ,'C;, ' ' ---- " O' '-:- ',-, '. • • Malted GO out 1- , , ,Th :: '-,,1 t `-, Ift .:11111 rat t, par cop?. the \4.4--,.^:^--,--, - ^ , „,,_, . :caplet° Carrier. Subscribers .k '''',HW:- . 1; 7' 1, -. , , . 4 tz.oo yoado.l'll,1.11 .1. ~ .----,-.....,, ........ o •":‘.\4`4 * r'A.T.,,, ---- ,,,„ Ric city, SEVEN DOLLARS PER ANNUM; Tunes . V 1 , • - 14,0,-;.- .1 .1 • -,o°l'l- .4 - The money accompany , always the °miss, mut . AND CENTS . mute )01,1,ass FIFTY FOR IRE MONTHS; .. 4,' 5.... 7 ....„,... N,..1 .4...,......._ . - -" ..,,...--- a.m.!: to no instance can theßa term* be &Waded /Mat, Elb AND Irt ;NE DOLIAU SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS FOR , • thq, Very yearn MONTHS, invariably Inadvance for the time • efort it Chile merethan the cost tlfPerm% .
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Signers of the U.S. Constitution
    CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
    [Show full text]
  • The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Vol
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1987 Book Review: The oD cumentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2. Edited by Maeva Marcus and James R. Perry. John P. Roche Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Roche, John P., "Book Review: The ocD umentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2. Edited by Maeva Marcus and James R. Perry." (1987). Constitutional Commentary. 499. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/499 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 166 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 4:155 judgment-of personal responsibility for one's own choices and be­ havior-is lacking. In short, Hewlett and others now writing in a comparable vein never consider that the "double-bind" on women Hewlett de­ scribes-the multiple burdens, the tensions and conflicts-may not be the result of society's failures, or the clashing demands of femi­ nists and conservatives, but an inescapable dilemma, part of the human condition generally, and the female condition particularly. None of this, I hasten to add, means that parental leaves and other measures are necessarily bad. Women do marry and have children; they also work. Various proposals may be sound.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mclean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician Paul Finkelman
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 62 | Issue 2 Article 7 3-2009 John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician Paul Finkelman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Paul Finkelman, John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician, 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 519 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol62/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician Paul Finkelman* I. THE STRANGE POLITICAL CAREER OF A MINOR JACKSONIAN JUSTICE .......................................................... 522 II. A CAREER ON THE COURT: COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY ....................................... 533 III. MCLEAN AND SLAVERY: A LONE ANTISLAVERY VOICE IN A SEA OF PROSLAVERY JURISTS ............................ 539 A. Slavery and the Northwest Ordinance on the Ohio Supreme Court ..................................... 541 B. Fugitive Slaves and their Abolitionist Allies .......... 543 C. The Jurisprudenceof Free Soil ................................ 552 D. Dred Scott: McLean's Forgotten Dissent ................. 558 IV . C ON CLU SION ........................................................................ 564 Unlike almost all early Supreme Court Justices, John McLean came from extraordinarily humble origins. He was born in New Jersey in 1785.1 His parents, Fergus and Sophia Blackford McLean, were farmers who moved to Virginia in 1789, Kentucky in 1790, and finally Ohio in 1796. Like many children of the frontier, the future Justice 2 had no formal education for most of his boyhood.
    [Show full text]
  • John Marshall
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 43 (2001-2002) Issue 4 Symposium: The Legacy of Chief Article 9 Justice John Marshall March 2002 John Marshall: Remarks of October 6, 2000 William H. Rehnquist Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Legal History Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation William H. Rehnquist, John Marshall: Remarks of October 6, 2000, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1549 (2002), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol43/iss4/9 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr JOHN MARSHALL REMARKS OF OCTOBER 6,2000 WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST* Thank you, Dean Reveley, for the kind introduction. It is a great pleasure to be here. Next January will be the two hundredth anniversary of the appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I am quite convinced that Marshall deserves to be recognized along with George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson as one of the "Founding Fathers" of this country. Admittedly, he does not have the name recognition of Washington, Hamilton, or Jefferson, but a strong case can be made for the proposition that his contribution to our system of government ranks with any of theirs. I shall try to make that case this evening. Of these Founders, Washington had the experience as a military commander and the reputation for public rectitude that were essential in our first President.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ratings Game: Factors That Influence Judicial Reputation William G
    Marquette Law Review Volume 79 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 1996 The Ratings Game: Factors That Influence Judicial Reputation William G. Ross Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation William G. Ross, The Ratings Game: Factors That Influence Judicial Reputation, 79 Marq. L. Rev. 401 (1996). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol79/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 79 Winter 1996 Number 2 THE RATINGS GAME: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE JUDICIAL REPUTATION WILLIAM G. ROSS* INTRODUCTION The rating of United States Supreme Court justices is an increasingly favorite pastime among scholars, judges, journalists, students, and practicing attorneys. Once the domain of a few pundits who made personal lists of the all-time "greatest" justices,' surveys are becoming more formal and are embracing more participants. The most extensive * Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law of Samford University; A.B., Stanford, 1976; J.D., Harvard, 1979. The author was one of the scholars polled in the 1993 Blaustein- Mersky survey that is discussed in this Article. The author thanks Professor Roy M. Mersky of the University of Texas for advice and encouragement in connection with this Article and for his permission to publish the results of that survey as an appendix to this Article.
    [Show full text]